The domain name at issue is, registered with Enom, Inc.. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. John J. Upchurch as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on June 14, 2005; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on June 20, 2005. On June 15, 2005, Enom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the domain nameis registered with Enom, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Enom, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Enom, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”). On June 23, 2005, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of July 13, 2005 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@floridatimeclocks.com by e-mail. A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on July 13, 2005. On July 27, 2005, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed John J. Upchurch as Panelist. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS A.

Complainant 1. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark; 2. Complainant has rights and legitimate interests in the mark; and 3. The disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith by Respondent.B. Respondent 1. Complainant does not have rights or legitimate interests in the subject mark; 2. Complainant’s alleged mark is composed of descriptive and geographical terms; and 3. There is no need to address the bad faith question given Respondent’s rights and interests in the domain name at issue. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.” Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to o